[jbock13]

Bystander, I'm interested in what you mean. Is it my fault that some contracts aids? Should I be forced to subsidize them for their poor choice?

I know church charity should help, and we should, I just reject the argument that we are responsible for "killing" them.

Also, right on skywalker.

[From the class of 09]

Even more important than the law allowing for abortion is the fact that we live in a country where women willing go have this done. This is a heart/God issue that the church is losing.

IMO the Godparent home is one of the greatest ministries that Lib/TRBC has. If the anti-abortion groups spent more money on these type of ventures it would actual make a bigger difference IMO.

If we can win the hearts the law will change. Please don't misread this, I'm in favor of outlawing abortion but I'm a realist and history has shown that the current strategy of trying to simply change the law isn't working. We need the church to take up this fight with a real solution.

[NotAJerry]

Even more important than the law allowing for abortion is the fact that we live in a country where women willing go have this done. This is a heart/God issue that the church is losing.

IMO the Godparent home is one of the greatest ministries that Lib/TRBC has. If the anti-abortion groups spent more money on these type of ventures it would actual make a bigger difference IMO.

If we can win the hearts the law will change. Please don't misread this, I'm in favor of outlawing abortion but I'm a realist and history has shown that the current strategy of trying to simply change the law isn't working. We need the church to take up this fight with a real solution.

If the American Evangelical church would do anything that looks like caring for the poor, the weak, the widow, the orphan, etc., then the voting patterns of Congress/POTUS wouldn't matter very much on issues like abortion. But, that would require the church to be the church first and a voting block second, and I doubt that happens anytime soon.

[From the class of 09]

Even more important than the law allowing for abortion is the fact that we live in a country where women willing go have this done. This is a heart/God issue that the church is losing.

IMO the Godparent home is one of the greatest ministries that Lib/TRBC has. If the anti-abortion groups spent more money on these type of ventures it would actual make a bigger difference IMO.

If we can win the hearts the law will change. Please don't misread this, I'm in favor of outlawing abortion but I'm a realist and history has shown that the current strategy of trying to simply change the law isn't working. We need the church to take up this fight with a real solution.

If the American Evangelical church would do anything that looks like caring for the poor, the weak, the widow, the orphan, etc., then the voting patterns of Congress/POTUS wouldn't matter very much on issues like abortion. But, that would require the church to be the church first and a voting block second, and I doubt that happens anytime soon.

Unfortunately your probably right. But I think this is the bigger issue and really the only solution to the key problem. Changing the law is like treating the symptom instead of the underlying disease.

[Purple Haize]

I assume you are talking about abortion being used as a means of birth control. That is by far the largest percentage, but there also other reasons. Just clarifying.

[LUconn]

I just reject the argument that we are responsible for "killing" them.

I hate to be "that guy" who brings up Nazis and Hitler but... it's just such an obvious parallel. All of the people who stood by and did nothing, etc. etc. I'm sure you've heard it a million times


And I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it but killing does not need quotations.

[RubberMallet]

my decision on president this year is purly economic and healthcare based i believe. if you don't have anything to offer me there, then no dice. abortion isn't getting overturned, gay marriage will inevitably be widespread so those topics are really low on the totem pole.

This is a bit disheartening....someone in this thread mentioned stewardship as it relates to voting. As Christians, I think we need to cast our vote with that mindset. So, that said, do I believe that God cares more about our economy and healthcare or more that we, as a nation kill over a million (number from the Center for Disease Control) of the most defenseless in our society in the name of convenience?

I understand the resistance to vote on an issue that doesn't appear will ever change in this country. However, that is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. You can't win a fight that you quit.

while i don't care about what you find disheartening, the church has all but exhausted its resources legislatively at stopping the machine of baby killing. its not a legislative issue anymore to me. its a heart issue. stop legislating morality. it has never worked. there are other ways of lessening the use of abortion. it starts with being good christians. its easier to vote than it is to be loving to people and reach out to those in need. "hey want to come work at a crisis pregnancy center?" "SORRY I HAVE A TEE TIME THAT DAY BUT BELIEVE ME I VOTE AGAINST ABORTION".

legislators and their friends have their hands too far down the planned parenthood money barrell for it to go away that way.

[RubberMallet]

I just reject the argument that we are responsible for "killing" them.

I hate to be "that guy" who brings up Nazis and Hitler but... it's just such an obvious parallel. All of the people who stood by and did nothing, etc. etc. I'm sure you've heard it a million times


And I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it but killing does not need quotations.

we are at the point now where it would be like hitler won, took over all of europe and just now we are like "NO DONT DO THAT".

[ALUmnus]

First of all, most legislation is for moral issues. Second, I don't see how outlawing murder is Christians trying to impose their morality on the rest of society. It's amazing how far the lines of dialogue have been moved.

[jbock13]

while i don't care about what you find disheartening, the church has all but exhausted its resources legislatively at stopping the machine of baby killing. its not a legislative issue anymore to me. its a heart issue. stop legislating morality. it has never worked. there are other ways of lessening the use of abortion. it starts with being good christians. its easier to vote than it is to be loving to people and reach out to those in need. "hey want to come work at a crisis pregnancy center?" "SORRY I HAVE A TEE TIME THAT DAY BUT BELIEVE ME I VOTE AGAINST ABORTION".

legislators and their friends have their hands too far down the planned parenthood money barrell for it to go away that way.

This.

[RubberMallet]

and obviously as it is, it fails to legislate it properly. as much as you don't like it being imposing our morality, thats all it is in a free society. i don't see how voting for idiots who will continue to impoverish a nation (which in turn creates many more abortions) only because they are against something they have no power to change. abortion just isn't as much of a priority for me as it is for some from a presidential standpoint. there are other avenues available for me to express and handle my outrage.

stop beating our heads against a wall.

[Purple Haize]

Actually for the Hitler Nazi analogy to work, Christians would have to be saying "I didn't know they were performing abortions. I had no idea.". Or they would have to be actively taking part in the funneling of abortions for birth control and justifying it by saying ' It's the law. I have to do it."
Under Nazi Germany, places like the Liberty Godparent home would only exist under ground.

[ALUmnus]

and obviously as it is, it fails to legislate it properly. as much as you don't like it being imposing our morality, thats all it is in a free society. i don't see how voting for idiots who will continue to impoverish a nation (which in turn creates many more abortions) only because they are against something they have no power to change. abortion just isn't as much of a priority for me as it is for some from a presidential standpoint. there are other avenues available for me to express and handle my outrage.

stop beating our heads against a wall.

I'll just say I disagree completely.

[LUconn]

Actually for the Hitler Nazi analogy to work, Christians would have to be saying "I didn't know they were performing abortions. I had no idea.".

Is that different than, "it's not a priority for me"? Well, I saw the Jews being loaded into the train cars and I knew that they were taking them to be gassed, but the other candidates are bankrupting Germany! At least Adolf has some fiscal responsibility.

It goes:

1. Economy
2. Jobs
3. Finding Ark of the Covenant and/or Holy Grail
4. Protecting human life

Can't win them all. Clearly Dolf is our guy.

[Purple Haize]

Actually for the Hitler Nazi analogy to work, Christians would have to be saying "I didn't know they were performing abortions. I had no idea.".

Is that different than, "it's not a priority for me"? Well, I saw the Jews being loaded into the train cars and I knew that they were taking them to be gassed, but the other candidates are bankrupting Germany! At least Adolf has some fiscal responsibility.

It goes:

1. Economy
2. Jobs
3. Finding Ark of the Covenant and/or Holy Grail
4. Protecting human life

Can't win them all. Clearly Dolf is our guy.

Again the analogy does not hold. Harboring Jews in Nazi Germany was a crime punishable by death are a long stay in a 'Camp'. Places like the Godparent home are free to operate in America, helping women who are pregnant without fear of reprisal. We are free to help people like this. Heck, Ron Paul supporters would probably say let the market decide and if we as Christians do a great job helping those in need, there will not be enough people seeking abortions to make it profitable.
Two final points
A president can not wave a magic wand and end abortion.
It becomes a simple choice. When you vote ask yourself which candidate gives the best chance of changing abortion legislation : Obama or ANY republican candidate. Is it more likely Obama or ANY republican candidate will nominate judges that MAY vote to change abortion laws.

[LUconn]

There are very few things in life that are 100% analogous if we want to get into every detail and specific. But the fact is they are at the very least similar. Doing what you can to stop legalized murder. But this is a dumb argument anyway. Obviously the president cannot just end abortion with some kind of proclamation, but there are a lot more ways to affect abortion "rights" than just outright getting rid of it. Bush did everything he could in his first term and was able to really restrict it. Things that can probably be undone. So the president can definitely, indirectly have an impact.

[Purple Haize]

But the fact is they are at the very least similar. Doing what you can to stop legalized murder.
Bush did everything he could in his first term and was able to really restrict it. Things that can probably be undone. So the president can definitely, indirectly have an impact.

No they are not even remotely similar. One was a forced systematic policy to eliminate an entire race of people. The other is a voluntary option pregnant women have, all be it a heinous one. In one it was a capital offense to oppose the law. In the other personal opposition to the law is encouraged. If you want an analogy that is somewhat similar, look at Chinas 1 child policy.
Yes Bush did what he could. And if abortion is your one topic, you still have to ask yourself, which of these 2 candidates give us the best chance to curb birth control abortion. I guarantee you it is NOT Obama.

[jmdickens]

and obviously as it is, it fails to legislate it properly. as much as you don't like it being imposing our morality, thats all it is in a free society. i don't see how voting for idiots who will continue to impoverish a nation (which in turn creates many more abortions) only because they are against something they have no power to change. abortion just isn't as much of a priority for me as it is for some from a presidential standpoint. there are other avenues available for me to express and handle my outrage.

stop beating our heads against a wall.

I'll just say I disagree completely.

While we all disagree with abortions, the states, not the federal government should decide abortion laws. That would allow a much greater chance that abortions would end.

When talking about legislating morality, do not forget Charlemagne did this and it didn't quite turn out so well.

Freedom, and a change of heart with the power of Christ is the only way to stop abortions; not forcing our views on others. It doesn't work, and it was never the founding fathers intentions.

[LUconn]

I just deleted a big long thing to Haize because even though I think I'm right, it's completely beside the point to be arguing about if it is analogous. (But I don't want to look like I lost so I typed this sentence )

When talking about legislating morality, do not forget Charlemagne did this and it didn't quite turn out so well.

Freedom, and a change of heart with the power of Christ is the only way to stop abortions; not forcing our views on others. It doesn't work, and it was never the founding fathers intentions.

What is going on around here?!!? Are we in crazy town?? I really don't want to get personal but I know you are in LU law and this is the exact opposite of what the intention of creating that program was. If this is considered "Legislating morality" or "forcing our view on others", than so is every other law we have. I can't tell you how disheartening this is to be saying on a Liberty University based messageboard.

[Purple Haize]

LU I graciously accept your analogy surrender

IMO we have a better chance of ending abortion by changing hearts and minds first. Would I be opposed if legislation came down the pipe outlawing it as a for of birth control? H to the yes I would. If I vote for a strong pro life candidate in the primary but the lose to someone not as strong will I vote for them in the general election over Obama ? Double H to the ya I will.

[RubberMallet]

its so disheartening

[flamehunter]

I just deleted a big long thing to Haize because even though I think I'm right, it's completely beside the point to be arguing about if it is analogous. (But I don't want to look like I lost so I typed this sentence )

When talking about legislating morality, do not forget Charlemagne did this and it didn't quite turn out so well.

Freedom, and a change of heart with the power of Christ is the only way to stop abortions; not forcing our views on others. It doesn't work, and it was never the founding fathers intentions.

What is going on around here?!!? Are we in crazy town?? I really don't want to get personal but I know you are in LU law and this is the exact opposite of what the intention of creating that program was. If this is considered "Legislating morality" or "forcing our view on others", than so is every other law we have. I can't tell you how disheartening this is to be saying on a Liberty University based messageboard.

+1 LUconn.
What do we do when the other side forces their views on us and tell us that we can't try to persuade young women that abortion is wrong? Or that we have to allow gays in our churches in positions of leadership and we can't teach what the Bible says about that subject and many others. If we don't try to force our views into legislation where appropriate then our views will become illegal. Abortion for convenience is murder and should be illegal.

[Purple Haize]

FLAME your last sentence is spot on.
The rest is just conjecture that can easily be manipulated

[jmdickens]

What is going on around here?!!? Are we in crazy town?? I really don't want to get personal but I know you are in LU law and this is the exact opposite of what the intention of creating that program was. If this is considered "Legislating morality" or "forcing our view on others", than so is every other law we have. I can't tell you how disheartening this is to be saying on a Liberty University based messageboard.

+1 LUconn.
What do we do when the other side forces their views on us and tell us that we can't try to persuade young women that abortion is wrong? Or that we have to allow gays in our churches in positions of leadership and we can't teach what the Bible says about that subject and many others. If we don't try to force our views into legislation where appropriate then our views will become illegal. Abortion for convenience is murder and should be illegal.

That is when you mention the first amendment. That is a dangerous slippery slope argument to make that because we dont believe doing it on the Federal level does not mean we no longer have the ability to educate people on when life begins and when it starts having inalienable rights. It comes through education, and that means teaching that life has an inherent value. That means all life, not just the unborn child. It means the elderly that we wont help. It means soldiers we send to die for political purposes. It includes those we send to prison for petty crimes.

With the gay issue, argue their separation of church and state. Same way with marriage. Tell them that religion is outside of the Federal government. Let the state vote if they want to allow gay marriage. Would be so much easier....Can you tell me what law says I have to let homosexuals be a priest or a pastor??? Or what law says my kids cannot pray at a school???

[jbock13]

+1 jmdickens. Give the states the power to decide.